Capping benefits to £26,000 a year - I think its wrong, do you?

[GodStar]

I have one of these over the from me, it’s a nice 4 bedroom houses valued at £180K paid for by the council and she is the foster carer to most of her grandchildren, her children drag even more money out of the state, because of their disabilities, well actually their drug and alcohol abuse.

 

Im not sure a childs mothers relatives can be paid foster carers can they? Otherwise there is clearly scope for abuse of the system. My sister is full time carer of her nephew but receives nothing. Is she missing out?

[kidley]

WOW this does want stopping

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276561/Grandmother-caring-granddaugh

 

link does not seem to work

 

grandmother has won the right to be paid for looking after her granddaughter at the same rate as a foster mother.

A judge ruled that social workers could not pay her less than a foster parent who is not related to the child.

Family lawyers described the ruling, revealed yesterday, as a landmark decision and said it was an important step towards new recognition of the rights of grandparents in the upbringing of their grandchildren.

The grandmother, who for legal reasons can be identified only as GM, took over caring for her 15-year-old granddaughter known as A in December 2004 at the request of Kent County Council social workers.

The council refused to pay GM the same money as a foster carer, even though without the grandmother’s willingness to look after the girl she would have been taken into state care, and would have gone to live either in a children’s home or with a foster family.

At the High Court in London, Mrs Justice Black ruled that A’s history meant that she must be legally regarded as ‘looked after’ by the local authority ‘in terms of financial and other resources’.

That status means the council must pay the grandmother £146.23 per week, the same payment that would go to a foster parent, instead of the £63.56 in benefit support that she is currently receiving. The decision means the grandmother, who is now retired, will receive more than £80 a week more.

But the judge gave the council permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Mrs Justice Black said A’s parents had been assessed as ‘clearly unable to care for her’.

A’s mother – GM’s daughter – had suffered mental problems and been involved in a number of violent relationships, including with A’s father.

There was little doubt that A’s experience of living with her parents before December 2004 had been harmful to her, said the judge.

‘GM says it was on about 15 December 2004 that the social worker rang her and asked if she would be prepared to start caring for A,’ the judge said in her ruling. ‘She says she asked what would happen if she refused and was told that A would be put in care.’

Because of an unexplained delay in the case coming to court, backdated payments will only be paid from March 2 last year.

After the case, the grandmother said: ‘I put myself out and expected the local authority to do the same.

‘When I heard that I had won I burst into tears. It means so much both to me and my granddaughter. Teenagers are very expensive to bring up.’

Nigel Priestley, of Huddersfield law firm Ridley & Hall, which represented the grandmother, said ‘kinship carers’ are increasingly being used because of a shortage of foster carers.

‘They shouldn’t have to find themselves battling with the local authority for support,’ he added.

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1276561/Grandmother-caring-granddaughter-15-wins-right-pay-foster-carer-landmark-court-decision.html#ixzz1kO3DC0mW

[MrSmith]

Im not sure a childs mothers relatives can be paid foster carers can they? Otherwise there is clearly scope for abuse of the system. My sister is full time carer of her nephew but receives nothing. Is she missing out?

 

Your sister sounds like a nice person and should ignore this, but if she threatened to leave the child for the state to care for, they would offer pay her to care for the child, it would also depend on whether your sisters partner works.

[MrSmith]

The problems seams to be that some disabilities stop people from being able to care for their children but the disability also makes them more likely to have children.

[discodown]

Shall we clear up how this cap will actually work? There seems to be a lot of frothing and blowing but so far as i've seen theres been no definition as to how it will actually work on this thread yet.

 

Firstly it only affects families where nobody works. So if someone goes out and gets a part time job the cap doesn't affect them any more.

 

Secondly the important thing to remember is its a cap. Its not a raise. People won't have their benefits increased to £26k.

 

If they're getting more than £500 per week for everything then they get the hard cash first then what they normally wouldn't see as cash but is still a benefit (housing benefit and council tax benefit, dental care, prescription charges free dental care etc) stops and they have to pay for that out of their £500 like everyone else.

 

For example. (All figures are made up because I can't be bothered to research for accuracy. Its just to give you an idea)

 

Family A consists of Mum, Dad, 4 kids in rented accomodation.

 

Mum and Dad don't work and get income support

Mum is disabled and gets DLA and mid care and low mobility

Dad is her registered carer

 

The kids get child support and child tax credits

One of the kids is disabled so they get high rate DLA and low rate mobility for him

Mum is his registered carer

 

They get Housing benefit at 4 bed rate and council tax benefit

 

So for sake of argument lets say their current benefits all in would be £800 per week

 

That now drops to £500 but they get £500 in hard cash the missing £300 would not be paid on their rent and council tax.

[frededwards]

We have to accept that there are vast tranches of this country where unemployment and the claiming of benefits are the career option of choice.

 

It is completely inexcusable that workers on or near the minimum wage and pensioners with just enough saving to attract taxation are financing these life-long scroungers and the feckless.

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, the long term* unemployed should get vouchers that can only be spent on food, cleaning products, clothes etc, (i.e. Not fags or booze) at the minimum wage minus £10.00. They should get £5.00 in cash, for booze and/or fags ect.

 

I return for that, they should be expected to do full time work to benefit the community.

 

 

40 hours a week in February, picking up dog turds for a fiver less than the minimum wage should focus their minds.

 

 

I would class long term unemployer as anything over 20% of years spent working. i.e If you've worked for 10 years, you are entitled to 2 years on current benefit levels, after that you're in the park with the grabby-stick thing and a bucket.

[I1L2T3]

We have to accept that there are vast tranches of this country where unemployment and the claiming of benefits are the career option of choice.

 

Why do you think are there vast tranches of the country like that.

[chem1st]

http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/news/0084/cap-payments-clear-mud

 

Suppose ManofStrad has 20000 acres...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360998/Wealthy-minister-earns-2m-EU-farm-subsidies-department-tried-cover-up.html

 

And suppose LadonDole needs some food...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rioting-a-Tesco-Value-Basmati-Rice-and-being-Proud-of-it-_-/266262196723643

 

How would you explain hierarchical structures, class monopoly and unemployment; resulting from monopolies as diverse as, but not limited to, LAND, money, patents, intellectual property rights, restricted trades, state privilege etc. etc.

 

And if we really do have social mobility how can LadonDole compete fairly in the potato growing business with Manofsrtad?

 

If you would be so kind as to reply> Cyclone?

[FairDooz]

Going back a page ...

 

The point that I'm making is that the cap will only affect a small percentage of benefit claimants. I think that it is a good message to send, but it is a message, not a financial saving of any note.

 

The message isn't just to the benefit claimants though. It's a message to everybody on minimum wage (and maybe a fair bit higher too) that it pays to work.

 

You can tell by the tone of this discussion that people care about fairness even if it doesn't affect them directly. It won't directly affect me and I appreciate the country won't be saving huge amounts of money by imposing the cap, but it is important that everybody who works knows that their taxes aren't subsidising those who are in a poverty trap and who avoid taking up opportunities for work because they'll be worse off!

 

We need to end the poverty trap created by the current benefit system.

 

On that point it's not just a cap on benefits we need, but something like NIT - negative income tax, discussed earlier, so that for every hour a person works, they are better off than having not worked.

 

(Incidentally let's not forget that there's unfairness in pay and taxation to be addressed at the top end of the pay scales as well, but that's another discussion)

[Cyclone]

If you would be so kind as to reply> Cyclone?

 

I'll see if I have time to read your links tomorrow.